Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2010 Columbia University Democrats
A detained immigrant visits his son and family members in a California detention center.
By Sean Quirk
Despite the historical pluralism in the Nation of Immigrants, Americans have often displayed gross xenophobia and anti-immigration sentiments towards those that seek a new life on their shores. Trends in the last few decades continue America’s recurrent predilection to shut its gates to hopeful immigrants.
No blog piece could accurately encapsulate the complexity of the United States’ immigration issue. The multifarious characteristics of immigration politics and individuals who come to America will not all be addressed in this piece. Instead, we will analyze a few significant segments of the current debate surrounding undocumented immigration—namely, the issue’s terminology, the “freeloader” myth, and the struggle for labor mobility. This piece is not intended to conform to Democratic Party policy pamphlets, but instead to recast the undocumented immigration debate in terms that promote greater tolerance and recognition of a desire to ameliorate poverty.
Hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric is so ubiquitous that it pervades beyond Limbaugh’s radio waves and Dobbs’ rants to exit the mouths of our Democratic president and the liberal populace. The common term “illegal alien” is one of many epithets used to dehumanize a person who resorts to extralegal means to enter the United States. The term removes the subject from our political-legal community as an “illegal” human being, while s/he exists as an “alien” outside the accepted bounds of American society. Anti-immigration rhetoricians often simply call these desperate, often impoverished peoples “illegals,” further dehumanizing them in order to inhibit our otherwise natural feelings of empathy towards the needy.
To frame the debate not around sub-human “illegals,” but the undocumented immigrants that disobey the law often to feed themselves and their children is to begin to strip away at the socially constructed animosity toward undocumented immigrants. Americans can then begin to see the undocumented population that lives in the shadows of our society and the faces behind the border wall.
Immigration opponents’ frequent claim that undocumented workers “freeload” off society is false. In fact, by paying federal income taxes out of their paychecks and abstaining from using state resources such as welfare, Medicare, and even calling the police/fire department for fear of being deported, undocumented immigrants actually add significantly more revenue to the state than the costs of the services they use. Princeton Professor Douglass Massey’s article “Illegal immigrants: Are they freebies or freeloaders?” reveals that a mere 4 percent of a studied immigration population used food stamps, while 60 percent reported paying taxes. Moreover, only 11 percent reported sending their children to US public schools, even though they are legally entitled to do so. The result of these undocumented workers is actually a net increase in government funds. Yet, the more compelling realization from this data is not the positive economic benefits of undocumented populations, but the moral reprehensibility of a system that allows millions of people to remain economically destitute in the shadows of the general American public.
Immigration reform—long-debated and little-instituted—must be a paramount objective for the American polity. Any reform must be centered around the correlation beyond the strength of the US economy and its resulting lure to foreign laborers. The recent recession appears to have decreased the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US from 11.8 million in 2007 to 11.6 million in 2008, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Such data demonstrates that these workers, failing to find jobs, are returning to their native countries. Political and cultural leaders must recognize the power of the US economy over immigration flows and its capability to improve the livelihoods of millions who seek better economic conditions, not to mention the great economic benefits for the US from large amounts of willing labor.
Just as nations lifted tariffs and embargoes to expand free trade, developing countries must acknowledge the hypocrisy of political boundaries that strictly halt the free movement of labor. Radical as it may seem, such freedom of migration to meet global labor demands can substantially improve the livelihoods of indigent laborers. For instance, Nepal’s deep poverty had been cut by 25 percent due to remittances from Nepalese working in India. Lant Pritchett, a globalization expert at Harvard, reminds us that such poverty alleviation is not about helping Nepal, but about helping Nepalese. Rawlsian philosophy advocates not discriminating against others due to any conditions of birth. If we do not want to prevent a woman from acquiring a job because of her sex, then how can we bar her because of the location of her birth?
Globalization will continue to alter what products we consume and how Americans perceive international workers that meet unmet domestic labor demands. As we look at the undocumented immigration debate, we must recognize that contentment with poverty on this or the other side of American borders is deplorable. It is time for immigration reform, and it is time to bring the undocumented mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, out from the shadows, welcoming those who desire to join the Nation of Immigrants.
Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry at the Climate Action Rally
By Michael Rady
American environmental policy has come a long way since President Obama was inaugurated just over a year ago. Immediately following his move into the White House, the President instructed the Department of Transportation to increase national fuel economy standards from 27.5 mpg to 42 mpg for 2011 model year cars. This improvement preceded various other executive actions to address impending environmental concerns, namely global warming. On this front, the E.P.A. took a momentous step to recognize that greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide pose a threat to humans and the environment. This acknowledgment allowed the agency to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, factories, and other major emitters.
Yet the President and his E.P.A. Secretary Lisa Jackson both agree that greenhouse gases should be regulated by an act of Congress, not by executive decree. Thus, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed in late June by the House of Representatives, sheds better light on how Carbon dioxide emissions will be controlled by the federal government. The House Climate Bill would set a limit on how much Carbon dioxide the nation can emit each year, slowly reducing that amount each year until 2050. The country’s CO2 emissions would be reduced by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% of 2005 levels by 2050. Utilities, manufacturers, and other groups would receive credits for permissible carbon emissions, and these groups would be allowed to sell unused credits, or buy more credits, depending upon their carbon needs.
President Obama’s first year in office saw some progressive environmental policy changes; however, many of the reforms that were initiated this past year depend upon further action in 2010.
While the House climate bill created a clear framework to reduce American greenhouse gas emissions, the Senate has just begun debating climate change legislation. Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” on September 30th to Senator Boxer’s Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill highly mirrors the House legislation, with many of the same long-term reduction targets. However, since its introduction, the Kerry-Boxer bill has made little progress in committee, and is expected to face further hurdles in the Finance, Commerce, and Agriculture Committees. Moreover, the bill will likely not be debated on the Senate floor until healthcare is resolved, a jobs bill is passed, and financial regulatory measures are agreed upon. These obstacles have led some to predict that a climate bill may have to wait until 2011.
If Congress does not pass climate legislation in a timely manner, the E.P.A. may very well decide to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. E.P.A. reforms would undoubtedly reduce emissions, yet some fear unilateral executive action would not only cost President Obama political favor, but would also have a more damaging impact upon utility rates and manufacturing costs than would Congressional legislation with tax-credits, grants, and relief to the poor.
By Kate O’Gorman
Welcome to 2010: the Year of the Midterm Election. Anticipated as a great indicator of public opinion on the Obama presidency and the health care battle, we are looking at an interesting and intense fight for 2010. Perhaps one of the most intense races is in my home state – Ohio. After twelve years in the Senate, Senator George Voinovich (R) is retiring, leaving an open seat in the Buckeye State. In response, three candidates have declared their intent to run: Lee Fisher (D), Jennifer Brunner (D), and Rob Portman (R). Over the next few months, we’ll keep a close eye on the issues and candidates of this race. So, for now, let’s get to know these candidates better.
Republican Candidate: Rob Portman
Rob Portman, the only declared Republican candidate thus far, boasts and impressive history of public service. Native of Cincinnati, Ohio, Portman is a lawyer, small-business owner, and dedicated public servant. Portman served for twelve years as the Congressman from Ohio’s 2nd district. In Congress, Portman co-authored welfare reform and was a big advocate for a balanced-budget. Portman also served extensively in the first Bush Administration in a number of positions as White House Associate Counsel and later Director of Legislative Affairs. In the administrations of George W. Bush, Portman served as a U.S. Trade Representative and then Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Dick Cheney has called Portman part of the next generation of Republican leaders.
As is evident from his resume, Portman’s success may be dependent on public opinion of the Bush administration. A recent poll indicated that 44% of voters wished that Bush were still in office, perhaps a good sign for the Portman campaign. But, he’ll have to face one of two formidable opponents in either Lee Fisher or Jennifer Brunner.
Democratic Candidate: Jennifer Brunner
Jennifer Brunner began her career in the same office that she now holds: the Office of the Secretary of State. Upon graduating law school, Brunner worked for four years in the Office of the Secretary of State during Senator Sherrod Brown’s administration. She then left to establish her law firm before returning to public service as a Judge in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. In 2006, Brunner was elected Secretary of State. Her most famous accomplishment was her overhaul of the Ohio election system, a battle that took her all the way to both the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts. For her brave efforts, she received a Profile in Courage Award in 2008.
Brunner has emerged as the early underdog candidate in the Democratic Primary, although the election remains five months away. Much of the institutional support and major endorsements have gone to her opponent, Lee Fisher and she has reported low fundraising totals. She is planning to wage a full-forced grassroots campaign for the primary (care to join the Brunner Brigade?) and has stood up against the troop increase in Afghanistan, against the death penalty, for a progressive health care plan, and for marriage equality. She may be an underdog in this race, but she certainly has a lot of fight in her.
Democratic Candidate: Lee Fisher
Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher was born in Cleveland, Ohio going to public school in Shaker Heights where he now lives. Lee Fisher served for ten years in the State Legislature before running for Attorney General in 1990. As Attorney General, Fisher created Operation Crackdown, an award winning program to shut down drug houses in Ohio. After four years as Ohio’s AG, Fisher moved to the non-profit sector, starting the Center for Families and Children in Cleveland and later the Mental Health Advocacy Coalition. In 2006, Fisher joined Strickland as his Lieutenant Governor, and now serves as both Lieutenant Governor and the Director of the Ohio Department of Development.
Fisher has emerged as the early leader in the race for the democratic nomination. He has been endorsed by many Ohio politicians and by President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. He has also demonstrated a stronger ability to fund raise so far in the race. Fisher has called for a public option in the health care plan, encouraging Senator Voinovich to break party lines and vote for the bill.
Whoever the democratic nominee will be, Portman will enter as a formidable opponent from the Republican party. Next week, we’ll take a look at how the candidates stand on the current health care debate. But for now, this election is shaping up to be a battle between the large cities of Ohio, as Fisher hails from Cleveland, Brunner from Columbus, and Portman from Cincinnati.
By Maddy Joseph
Obama – unlike Bush who nicknamed himself the “education president” and made national education legislation one of his first legislative priorities – has not made education a huge part of his agenda in the first year of his presidency. The moves he did make in 2009 were well received: picking an education secretary respected by reformers and union leaders alike and using money from Congressional stimulus packages to spur state-based reform.
But, what will 2010 bring in the politics of education? Here are two topics sure to be on everyone’s minds.
Race to the Top Fund
As part of the stimulus money allocated for education, Obama designated $4.35 billion for a grant competition among states known as Race to the Top. In theory, the prospect of more money for education should provide states with the incentive to create more meaningful reforms. The two-phase competition, which ends in September 2010, is a big deal for states (and DC), which are scrambling to remove undesirable laws and to create new programs that have an impact in the four main areas scored: turning around failing schools, creating better standards and assessments, increasing the use of data, and improving teacher quality. As applications are reviewed and money rewarded, look for a bigger discussion of what kinds of innovation have and haven’t been working and some of the institutional barriers that exist for states and cities trying to revolutionize their schools.
Most people in education understood the rules of Race to the Top as an outline of the Obama agenda on education, and Obama and Secretary of Education Duncan’s statements on education, which focus on raising the bar on failing schools and on teacher quality (specifically the importance of linking the assessment of teachers to student achievement data), seem to corroborate this claim.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Reauthorization
A recent article in Education Week suggests that Race to the Top not only laid out Obama’s broad priorities in education but also his plans for changes in NCLB, which is set to be reauthorized soon, possibly in 2010. If the debate about NCLB does get underway in 2010, it will become a huge, nationwide discussion of the direction of the government’s education policy in the last decade. There has been controversy about so many elements of NCLB that there are just too many points to name, and there is general consensus that the law is broken and in need of a total revamping. Some major questions about the general approach taken under NCLB need to be answered, and maybe will be in 2010:
- Should the role of the federal government be smaller or larger? States have actually made less progress (as measured by a national assessment) since NCLB, when the federal government took on a larger role. Some will say, hand education back to the states. Others will say that the structure of NCLB encouraged states to lower standards on their own assessments in order to reach the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014, thus decreasing actual student learning.
- Is the sanction approach of NCLB the right way to do it? Under NCLB, schools that are failing are labeled that and face a variety of what we might call punishments, including forced restructuring and the possibility of losing many students and the money that comes with them. The approach that Obama has taken with Race to the Top is one of positive incentives, and maybe that, or something like it, can be translated into NCLB.
Also, if you’re interested in reading more about these issues a good basic resource is the Times Topics page on No Child Left Behind. There are also many articles on Race to the Top and other stimulus funds in Education Week’s “Schools and the Stimulus”
Maddy Joseph
